DENIED and Opinion Filed October 17, 2024

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-24-01197-CR IN RE GEORGE W. FULCO Original Proceeding from the 15th Judicial District Court Grayson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-24-08957 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Nowell, and Miskel Opinion by Justice Miskel Before the Court is relator’s October 10, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus.

Relator is charged with an offense in Grayson County that is set in the 15th District Court. Relator asks this Court to compel the 15th District Court to rule on pretrial motions he claims he filed in the court. We deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

Relator’s petition does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure in numerous respects. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.1; TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(a)– (k); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1). Thus, relator’s petition does not meet the requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure for consideration of mandamus relief. See In re Guillaume, No. 05-24-00765-CV, 2024 WL 3548511, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 26, 2024, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (denying mandamus relief based on relator’s failure to comply with several Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure).

Additionally, relator is represented by counsel in the underlying criminal proceeding. A criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). The issue relator raises in his pro se petition for writ of mandamus relates directly to the criminal proceeding in which he is represented by counsel. Therefore, because relator is not entitled to hybrid representation, he has presented nothing for this Court’s consideration. See Patrick, 906 S.W.2d at 498.

We deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

241197f.u05 /Emily Miskel/ Do Not Publish EMILY MISKEL TEX. R. APP. P. 47 JUSTICE

–2–